Breen Attack on Earth

[Captain Seafort]

Really? Because the blasts and shockwaves on the ships view screen covered nearly the whole of the visable half of the planet. So what visuals counter this?

Wrong. They covered about 2/3 of the visible portion of the planet. About 1/8 of the planet overall.

So then where in this episode are they countered and where is your proof that the direct statements and visuals are wrong?

I'm talking about other episodes

Pegasus, Rise: PTs calculable to about 1 Mt
Legacy, Inheritance: E-D requires several seconds to drill a phaser-beam-width hole to a depth of a few km.

And this time, please remember that your opinion or wiki are not superior to canon.

That's rich, coming from you. I sometimes wonder whether you consider the laws of physics to be superior to your own opinions.

[Deepcrush]

I'm talking about other episodesPegasus, Rise: PTs calculable to about 1 MtLegacy, Inheritance: E-D requires several seconds to drill a phaser-beam-width hole to a depth of a few km.

Problem with this is that the fleet here wasn't trying to drill down through km's worth of the planet. They were simply looking to glass the surface.

Wrong. They covered about 2/3 of the visible portion of the planet. About 1/8 of the planet overall.

Watching on Youtube, even when the screen view is angled, little of the surfuse was left uneffected. The officer's statement stands unless you have another canon statement to over turn it.

That's rich, coming from you. I sometimes wonder whether you consider the laws of physics to be superior to your own opinions.

I've never pretended to be an expert on the laws of physics and infact have often commented that math isn't my strongest subject. This is wholy different from you, considering the number of times you've out right lied on subjects. Again, the episode clearly states and shows the effects of a fleet blasting the surface of the planet. There for it is canon, if you don't like that, then find somewhere in the episode or another episode that states a fleet isnt able to shoot at a planet.

[Captain Seafort]

Problem with this is that the fleet here wasn't trying to drill down through km's worth of the planet. They were simply looking to glass the surface.

They were trying to completely remove the crust and mantle, if "Lovok"'s briefing was in any way accurate. In any event, the speed of the E-D's drilling demonstrates that the weapons of a GCS (which can be assumed to be roughly equal to those of a warbird) can only remove a few fractions of a cubic kilometer per second, vastly less than the fleet would have had to achieve to inflict the damage claimed.

Watching on Youtube, even when the screen view is angled, little of the surfuse was left uneffected.

Little of the surface we saw. What we saw is only a fraction of the overall planetary surface.

There for it is canon, if you don't like that, then find somewhere in the episode or another episode that states a fleet isnt able to shoot at a planet.

I've never claimed they can't bombard planets. What I'm pointing out is that the effects claimed in TDiC are so far in excess of the effects previously and subsequently demonstrated by starship weapons as to be dismissable as an unreliable source.

[Deepcrush]

They were trying to completely remove the crust and mantle, if "Lovok"'s briefing was in any way accurate. In any event, the speed of the E-D's drilling demonstrates that the weapons of a GCS (which can be assumed to be roughly equal to those of a warbird) can only remove a few fractions of a cubic kilometer per second, vastly less than the fleet would have had to achieve to inflict the damage claimed.

Or so you believe, however this is countered by the canon provided.

Little of the surface we saw. What we saw is only a fraction of the overall planetary surface.

However we still saw the blast effects of their weapons, the opening volley still filled most of the screen. So we have no reason to believe that other ships weren't firing or looking at other spots on the planet. Nothing to counter the canon statement provided.

I've never claimed they can't bombard planets. What I'm pointing out is that the effects claimed in TDiC are so far in excess of the effects previously and subsequently demonstrated by starship weapons as to be dismissable as an unreliable source.

Again, this is what you believe but which is counterd by the canon provided. That you consider canon to be unreliable is fine for comparing Fiction to Real Life, but meaningless when speaking to the value of canon when comparing to the universe to which it is canon.

[Jim]

The 30% thing... was that the Founders planet you are referring to?

[Deepcrush]

Yes, the tactical officer reported that 30% of the planets surface had been destroyed.

[Graham Kennedy]

Since there is no reason to disbelieve the statement or to disbelieve the effect of their weapons

Yes there is - the direct contradiction of her statement by both the visuals of the attack and the evidence of all other calculations regarding the effects of AQ Great Power weapons,

Hold on a moment.

Are you saying that the visuals do not support what she said, or are you saying that they contradict what she said? Because those are two very different statements.

You have said that about 2/3 of the visible crust was affected, which amounts to 1/8 of the total surface. So that would support the first statement - the visuals don't prove that 30% of the crust being destroyed.

But from those numbers I assume you estimate that about 18.75% of the crust was visible... meaning that more than 80% of the crust was not shown. We don't know what was happening to it, so whilst we cannot assert that it was destroyed from the visual evidence, we also cannot assert that it was not. It's perfectly possible that, just as the portion of the crust we saw was quite small, so the portion of the destruction that we saw was quite small too. Which indeed would be backed up by the fact that out of a fleet of 20+ ships, we only see half a dozen or so firing to do the damage that we do see. I have no problem believing that the rest were doing damage that we were not shown.

At best, all we can say is that we see about 12.5% of the crust being impacted, and that more may have been. And since there is nothing to contradict the Romulan officer's statement that more was, there's no real need to discount it.

[Mikey]

What I think is being lost here is the subject of canonicity. The Romulan officer's statement is canon - but only canon evidence of what the Romulan officer said, not of what actually happened on the planet. Likewise, to play devil's advocate, as GK said the percentage of the surface affected is only canon insofar as the percentage of the surface depicted. We can't know what portion was affected of the "off-screen" planetary surface.

However, none of this speaks to the original point - just because we saw shipboard weapons which were capable of possibly glassing 30% of a planet's surface, doesn't tell us anything about whether other more specific planetary bombardment weapons are extant, or about the efficiency (NOT effectiveness!) of using the standard shipboard weapons for that role.

[Deepcrush]

What I think is being lost here is the subject of canonicity. The Romulan officer's statement is canon - but only canon evidence of what the Romulan officer said, not of what actually happened on the planet. Likewise, to play devil's advocate, as GK said the percentage of the surface affected is only canon insofar as the percentage of the surface depicted. We can't know what portion was affected of the "off-screen" planetary surface.

So you're saying we should just discard canon for no other reason then you feel like it? That is beyond stupid.

However, none of this speaks to the original point - just because we saw shipboard weapons which were capable of possibly glassing 30% of a planet's surface, doesn't tell us anything about whether other more specific planetary bombardment weapons are extant, or about the efficiency (NOT effectiveness!) of using the standard shipboard weapons for that role.

It tells us that 20+ ships and 4 seconds of fire = 30% of a planet's surface destroyed. Tells us that a dediated attack by ship could easily destroy a large portion of a planet, not just wreck a few buildings as we saw in the attack on earth. Also tells us that with this evidence we can be rather sure that the Breen attack failed as if even a single ship had gotten through then there would have been millions of casualties and not just building damage and some morale issues.

[Graham Kennedy]

As to whether special planetary bombardment weapons were used, I tend to think not - or at least, if they were then such weapons were not tremendously more powerful than normal weapons.

The reasoning is this : we see beam disrupter weapons being used in the bombardment. It seems very unlikely to me that shipboard disrupters within existing hulls and power systems could be refitted to be orders of magnitude more powerful than normal - if they could do that then everybody would just refit them all that way as standard, after all. I'm sure weapon output can be boosted to some extent, but really how far could that go?

Therefore those are standard, or at most modestly boosted, disrupters.

And there must be approximate equivalence between the beam and torpedo weapons, or else why bother using the disruptors at all? It would be like a nuclear bomber using a 20 mm cannon to strafe the target as it dropped a nuke on it.

Yes, they may have boosted the disrupters as much as they could, and they could be carrying weapons optimised for surface attack... but the difference from normal weapons must be a matter of a few times more, at most. Not hundreds or thousands of times more.

[McAvoy]

... I think I am going to get a beer and popcorn. This should be interesting...

I have to check, but that scene with the phaser drill, wasn't it modified to do that? Just asking because if it was then, the power could have been dialed (down or up) to make it work.

[Deepcrush]

Entirely possible that the drilling was done at a lower and or more stable power setting intended to not rupture the planet crust.

[Mikey]

As to whether special planetary bombardment weapons were used, I tend to think not - or at least, if they were then such weapons were not tremendously more powerful than normal weapons.

The reasoning is this : we see beam disrupter weapons being used in the bombardment. It seems very unlikely to me that shipboard disrupters within existing hulls and power systems could be refitted to be orders of magnitude more powerful than normal - if they could do that then everybody would just refit them all that way as standard, after all. I'm sure weapon output can be boosted to some extent, but really how far could that go?

Therefore those are standard, or at most modestly boosted, disrupters.

And there must be approximate equivalence between the beam and torpedo weapons, or else why bother using the disruptors at all? It would be like a nuclear bomber using a 20 mm cannon to strafe the target as it dropped a nuke on it.

Yes, they may have boosted the disrupters as much as they could, and they could be carrying weapons optimised for surface attack... but the difference from normal weapons must be a matter of a few times more, at most. Not hundreds or thousands of times more.

I tend to agree with you, which was I posed the question of the existence of specialized bombardment weapons in the first place.

So you're saying we should just discard canon for no other reason then you feel like it? That is beyond stupid.

I miss you when you're gone, Deep. No, I'm saying what I said (and you cited,) which has absolutely zero resemblance to the way you paraphrased it. If you don't understand hat I say, ask for clarification - but don't make it out to be something to which it isn't even remotely connected.

It tells us that 20+ ships and 4 seconds of fire = 30% of a planet's surface destroyed. Tells us that a dediated attack by ship could easily destroy a large portion of a planet, not just wreck a few buildings as we saw in the attack on earth. Also tells us that with this evidence we can be rather sure that the Breen attack failed as if even a single ship had gotten through then there would have been millions of casualties and not just building damage and some morale issues.

It does tell us that, at least the former part. None of that, however, has anything at all to do with anything I said.

[Deepcrush]

I miss you when you're gone, Deep. No, I'm saying what I said (and you cited,) which has absolutely zero resemblance to the way you paraphrased it. If you don't understand hat I say, ask for clarification - but don't make it out to be something to which it isn't even remotely connected.

Your post was nothing more then an extended attempt to skirt a midline in a conversation while adding nothing more then your thought that canon only counts if you feel like it. I took the sugar coating off of what you said. If you don't like being pointed out for something, don't do it.

It does tell us that, at least the former part. None of that, however, has anything at all to do with anything I said.

Other then the topic at hand which is the Breen attack on Earth.

[Jim]

Wasn't the surface of the Founders' planet... Founders?